What is Evolution?

[hamashiachagape]

These examples of ordering, not complexifying, are already covered in my previous response by the Curie Dissymmetry Principle, i.e. that a dissymmetry in a physical effect is always present in its physical cause. For example, take the case of sand grain sorting. A random mixture in zero gravity has no dissymmetry (it is isotropic). Introduce a gravitational field, then there is a dissymmetry because of the direction of the field. Then the sand grains can ‘self-sort’ with the density increasing with depth. But this new arrangement, with the directional arrangement of sand grains, actually reflects the dissymmetry of the gravitational field that causes the separation.

See here - Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers (#2)

That seems to be somewhat relevant.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Your friend is a theologian, therefore we should accept his knowlege of the application of entropy in open Biological systems more than a professor of Biology? The entire basis of one argument was that I shouldn't argue against a harvard proffessor. I merely stated that someone who disagrees with him has far more accolades, Dawkins holds honorary doctorates from half the universities in Britain! (I'd call that being respected in your field) Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My friend is not a Theologian. Your application to God is a Theological claim, not a Science one.

My friend is a Pharmacist, who has studied Dawko's arguments.

Is Dawkins information reliable as it pertains to Science? After studying his material and Sarfati's, I myself also have to agree, it does not.

 

[ciaphas]

I was referencing my academics on the subject of biology, I have not once in this articled begun to speculate about the existence of god. It is much better if the matter of "whether or not evolution is a verifiable process" to the scientists. I have no real idea why you started a conversation on the subject of entropy and decided that name-dropping your theologian friends would strengthen your argument.

 

[ciaphas]

As I said, please avoid linking huge internet pages that will take me an hour to read and digest, if you want to make a point, please make it in a more time-friendly fashion.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I was referencing my academics on the subject of biology, I have not once in this articled begun to speculate about the existence of god. It is much better if the matter of "whether or not evolution is a verifiable process" to the scientists. I have no real idea why you started a conversation on the subject of entropy and decided that name-dropping your theologian friends would strengthen your argument.

You don't think it significant that my close personal friend has actually studied Biology at a secular university and came to the conclusion that Evolution is untrue by the information that he learned while there? I personally think Dawkins is a bit overrated myself...most of his doctorates were given to him by these universities, he did not necessarily earn them. So its kind of elephant hurling in a way. Besides it would not be unexpected that many Scientists would agree with his absurd bunk, especially in Europe, where there tends to be an extreme liberal...stemmed in emotion, following.

Except when you brought Stephen Hawkings into it. Then you were bringing a Theological argument up.

I can see the problem here is going to be more Philosophical than Scientific. Philosophy...i.e. Logic, is that which links Theology with Science.

 

[hamashiachagape]

As I said, please avoid linking huge internet pages that will take me an hour to read and digest, if you want to make a point, please make it in a more time-friendly fashion.

Right, we wouldn't want to have to consider the other side right?

 

[ciaphas]

This problem you brought up was a matter of the application of the second law of thermodynamics in biological evolution, I think this is more scientifically rooted than philosiphically.

seeing as we are the only people actively contributing, would you like to move this to PMs?

 

[hamashiachagape]

This problem you brought up was a matter of the application of the second law of thermodynamics in biological evolution, seeing as we are the only people actively contributing, would you like to move this to PMs?

No, I'd like everybody to see what happens in real Science when we consider both sides.

The problem I brought up was twofold. Parts of it was centered around DNA genetic information, and the other parts had to do with Entropy.

 

[ciaphas]

Can I ask what your basis is in the fields of Biology and Physics? You refer to your "science friend" on occasion and then mention higher level thermodynamic concepts, I don't ask this to try to turn this into an argument over who has the most background knowlege in the subject but to find out to what level you understand your own arguments.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Can I ask what your basis is in the fields of Biology and Physics? You refer to your "science friend" on occasion and then mention higher level thermodynamic concepts, I don't ask this to try to turn this into an argument over who has the most background knowlege in the subject but to find out to what level you understand your own arguments.

I have taken Biology and Physics courses. I'm not specialized, but I converse often with people who have Scientific expertise. My two best friends, both Creation Scientists hold..respectively a doctorate and a Masters in Science related fields. (Aerospace Engineering the other). And I also study the issues on my own. Having these people around me truly helps me understand the issues more clearly.

 

[ciaphas]

Right, if we cut this down to your original point and my original answer. Just to clarify, you believe that if we define our system without boundries to energy and matter transfer you still believe that entropy must increase?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Right, if we cut this down to your original point and my original answer. Just to clarify, you believe that if we define our system without boundries to energy and matter transfer you still believe that entropy must increase?

I believe energy is running down. And I believe Harvard university professors are admitting that this applies in any foreseeable Scientific circumstance.

 

[ciaphas]

(sorry it took so long for me to reply, my computer is currently having a bit of a fit and is sporadically freezing on me)

 

[ciaphas]

What energy is running down? The energy of the entire universe or the system you are looking at?

 

[Mallon]

Yay. An engineer and a pharmacist -- scientists extraordinaire!

 

[hamashiachagape]

(sorry it took so long for me to reply, my computer is currently having a bit of a fit and is sporadically freezing on me)

Not to worry .

 

[hamashiachagape]

What energy is running down? The energy of the entire universe or the system you are looking at?

I believe it can be applied to both.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I think thats what a previous poster was having trouble understanding.

 

[ciaphas]

I still don't see how that is relevant to your argument, I'll try to clarify what I was saying. Nothing we look at with regards to evolution was a closed system, unless we consider the entire known universe as our boundries. Therefore I am saying that any evolutionary process cannot have the second law of dynamics applied to it.

(P.S. how did Mallon know I was an engineer? I'm sure I haven't mentioned it.) Edit: re-read the post and realised that he wasn't talking about me, sorry

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yay. An engineer and a pharmacist -- scientists extraordinaire!

Maybe not the Engineer as much, although he does have certain understandings that are relevant to some issues.

And the Pharmacist is foundationally centered in Biology.